Summations Only

I'm well aware of that. Your inability to learn has been noted, and not just by me.My replies to you are intended to prevent anybody else from falling for your nonsense. I don't hope to convince you that reality exists. (I don't believe in miracles.) Feel free to point out my ignorance - with actual facts, not just empty accusations. I will continue to point out your ignorance. If you had read my post (and feel free to check out the facts) you SHOULD have learned that Canada is also good for accepting refugees from American tyranny. Go ahead and try to refute anything I said.

I don't think it's possible for you to lose any knowledge or common sense. You're too firmly glued to what you think you know. Of course there is. There is no UNnatural way for it to begin.

1. Science doesn't deal in proof. It deals in evidence. And so do you, of course. When you drive through an intersection, you want evidence that another car is not going to hit you, so you look both ways.
2. Science doesn't deal in absolutes. And neither do you, of course. You don't stop at an intersection waiting for "absolute proof" that no car can possibly hit you. You go with the preponderance of evidence, the probability.So stop being dishonest. Nope. Belief is for when there is NO evidence. For example. there is NO evidence of any UNnatural cause for life. Exactly. So YOUR belief is worth less than one cent. I don't have a belief. I have evidence. I don't have any faith, i have evidence. Do you know anything about the so-called "laws of nature"? Did you know, for example that even what creationists call 'laws of nature" don't trump evidence? That "law' is just something that creationists made up. It has nothing to do with science. Scientific evidence shows no such thing. Hint: Life is made of chemicals. What magic do you think there is that makes some chemicals alive and other chemicals not alive?

Science doesn't deal in proof, so there's no reason for science to have "proof" of evolution. Science also doesn't have "proof" of gravity. Ya know why? Because science doesn't deal in proof. Well, noi, we don't. You demanded proof for evolution, which means you don't know anything about science. You have been lied to. And you contradict yourself. How could they have "access" to the evidence if there was no evidence? And you don't understand what interpretation means.Take the "Flood", for example. You CAN NOT interpret evidence of many small floods as evidence of one large flood. That isn't interpretation. That is fantasy. Nope. No faith. You have been lied to. I have said flat-out in many posts that I live in Canada. No miracle prognostication requitred. 100% wrong. 100% wrong. 100% wrong. 100% wrong. I don't try to deny the existence of God any more than you try to deny the existence of Quetzalcoatl. Dismally. If you had actually looked at the "evidence available" (my 20,000 or so posts), you would have found most of the actual facts instead of making silly assumptions.But you DON't look at the evidence. You only look up your ass, which is where your assumptions about evolution come from too.

No need to cry. What's wrong with Quetzalcoatl? Why can't Quetzalcoatl be another aspect of a multi-une god? Nothing "stubborn" about it. It's blindingly obvious. You never brought up a single coherent objection. And your belief, along with Goober Kreeft, is still wrong. There is no difference between creating evil and creating the "possibility" of evil. Make an argument. Don't just repeat the same nonsense. Go ahead and name twenty people who are not willing to give up the experience of war, famine, genocide, etc. I maintain that the jury is definitely NOT out on that. You deny Jesus. I have thought about everything I talk about. That's why it's easy to rebut your so-called arguments.Take your own advice. Disaster is evil. Calamity is evil. No difference after all. That's what I keep telling you but you continue to pretend that Satan is the bad guy. And you contradict yourself AGAIN. You're making that up. It says no such thing. And it says nothing about choosing one tree or the other. They were forbidden from eating from ONE tree only. Jesus didn't exist until thousands of years later. Not "self-actualization". Knowledge of Good and Evil. He didn't need to. I know how to operate a keyboard.

What parable?

Since when is it a parable? You seem to think that Adam and Eve and the snake were real.

I come from the olden days when you had to look over your shoulder when you smoked pot. I still look over my shoulder when I smell somebody else's pot.But this is the 21st century. A lot of grandmas are smoking pot.So how about an honest answer to the question?

I did get the analogy. My response was that grandma is as likely as anybody else to smoke pot, what with her glaucoma and all, and she is more likely than many others to share it with you, in cookies, for example. It has nothing to do with "evil" or "willfulness" or "rebelliousness". It has everything to do with grandmas being grandmas, especially grandmas of a certain generation.It was a bad analogy. I haven't applied. I don't like the nhe neighborhood. Smoking pot is not 'doing evil". Bad analogy. We know, we know. YAWN.You can't even apologize for "your" own apologetics, so stop wasting our time with your endless repetition. Which makes Him responsible.

Don't need to. I can rebut your apologetics off the top of my head any day of the week and twice on Sundays. You have it backwards, as usual. being able to express it it my (our) own words is a thousand times better than having to google it. You google till the cows come home but you don't understand what you google.

It's funny how you quote scripture actually saying flat out that "The earth is the LORD’s" and then you handwave it away saying that most commentaries disagree.

He most certainly can. My lease specifies no smoking (tobacco and/or pot). Quiet must be maintained from 10 PM to 8 AM. The laundry room may only be used from 9 AM to 9 PM. I can't even put a nail in the wall to hang a picture. The landlord is legally entitled to make those rules for the greater good of the residents at large. Wrong again. The only thing he can enforce is occupancy. If he doesn't like a guest's behavior, he can ask the guest to leave. His right to remove the unwanted guest forcibly is also circumscribed. Even if you were right about landlord/host rights, which you are not, you're just making that up. You're trying to reverse-engineer your theology to fit your misconceived notiions.

You should be able to answer that. It isn't a difficult question. You could google it.

And you don't understand a word of the apologetics that you worship. Your own fantasies scare you. (Now I'll read on in your post and see if I was right.) Yup, your fantasy. All in your addled mind. Not a vestage of reality. Easy prediction, since you won't live long enough to be proven wrong. I don't know why you're so enamored with a two-party system. Most of the mature democracies in the world have multiple parties. In Canada, we have five parties in Parliament.A system limited to two parties is necessarily polarizing. You're not "conservative-leaning". You fell off the edge long ago.And you're not a "Bible-thumper". You're a Bible-trasher.

And yet you don't give Him credit for thinking.